Historical Preservation Funding Being Cut

[itmaiden]

Someone I know received information regarding historical preservation funding being cut. Of course, those promoting saving the funding are with a tourism council and fear the funding cuts will affect the creation of sites to draw money from tourists. I personally, think a lot of money has been wasted on sites that are not of any great public interest. For instance, a family that owned an old homestead had gotten it totally refurbished on one of these programs and claiming it to be the oldest homestead in the county. I beg to differ, as I have been out exploring and treasure hunting throughout the county and know of many very very old homesteads. The homestead is way out in an area not a lot of people are going to travel to. Old homesteads are so common to our area (many people live in old homesteads even old log cabins that have been remodeled), so it is not of great interest around here. I don't think anyone from New York City is going to say "hey" there is an old homestead in Dalton, Arkansas, let us spend a couple of thousand on airline tickets to go see it". Sorry, can't picture the benefit except to the property owners.

Anyway, here is a link about the cuts, and you can write and encourage your US representatives that it is good to eliminate wasteful spending (unless you believe the other way). I do enjoy the fact some sites have been preserved, but I think all the important ones are pretty well covered already. Oh, and there is a link about endangered historical sites, which may be good MD sites.

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/11-most-endangered/listings.html

itmaiden

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[FISHEYE]

Its all about change.

 

[Alexandre]

That's not "change". That's more of the same.

We have the same problem.

 

[billinstuart]

I strongly disagree about the impact historic preservation has on local economies. Savannah wouldn't exist if it weren't for it's historic district. I ALWAYS look for brown signs when I travel. Any money spent on preservation stays in that community; Returned as wages for workers, sale of materials, increased property taxes on the property, utilities... Even remote sites benefit from this.

The other benefit is neighborhood retention, where ALL properties benefit from the maintenance and improvements of their neighbors.

Remote sites? Consider it "recycling". People have to live somewhere..if you don't restore/renovate that property, another POS new house has to be built somewhere.

 

[paddy.mick]

Yep, and the many places we enjoy here in Florida would have been condos without historic preservation: Sebastian, St. Augustine, Hobe Sound, and many other beautiful State and Fed parks. I'd rather land be set aside for preservation than let some out of state or foreign company come plunder it and leave us a stripmine, bankrupt housing project, or dumping ground.
And, isn't this a Shipwreck forum? Perhaps the Rants section is better suited for a lot of this?

 

[itmaiden]

This is a shipwreck forum, and if you have been following discussion, you will find that one of the problems treasure hunters have in Florida is the state intentionally used "preservation" as a way to keep treasure hunters out of areas where there is treasure. Preservation has made some shipwreck sites "off-limits" to salvors, so that is the shipwreck connection.

itmaiden

Yep, and the many places we enjoy here in Florida would have been condos without historic preservation: Sebastian, St. Augustine, Hobe Sound, and many other beautiful State and Fed parks. I'd rather land be set aside for preservation than let some out of state or foreign company come plunder it and leave us a stripmine, bankrupt housing project, or dumping ground.
And, isn't this a Shipwreck forum? Perhaps the Rants section is better suited for a lot of this?

 

[itmaiden]

States and communities can still designate a "place" or area as "historic". A number of communities in Florida have voted neighborhoods as "historic districts", and it doesn't require any funding to do so, except for the city/county to purchase a sign or too saying "Historic District", which can all be done on local funds.

Historic Funding is available often times through grants to a state, and if the state doesn't have anything to really spend it on, then something is "created". We have a site in our area which is purported to be one of the first settlements west of the Mississippi, and also the first "courthouse" this side of the river. The employees are "state employees" and paid out of state taxes. The buildings are gone and it is just empty land now, which is on a river and they built a lake. They have a tiny itsy bitsy museum and gift shop. But it existed as a "piece of land" privately owned before the property owner offered it up, but it is just land. It is supposed to be a tourist drawing card, but there is nothing really to see. The site has an excessive and highly varied mosquito population (which allegedly caused the plague that killed off all but 5 of the towns inhabitants) and a brown moccasin that almost got me one day. The mosquito's alone keep even the locals from going there much even for the fishing.

itmaiden

Yep, and the many places we enjoy here in Florida would have been condos without historic preservation: Sebastian, St. Augustine, Hobe Sound, and many other beautiful State and Fed parks. I'd rather land be set aside for preservation than let some out of state or foreign company come plunder it and leave us a stripmine, bankrupt housing project, or dumping ground.
And, isn't this a Shipwreck forum? Perhaps the Rants section is better suited for a lot of this?

 

[billinstuart]

Remember, historic preservation is largely a government supported free enterprise, and use of the property is not controlled by the gubment. Even a national register property can be TH'ed and even torn down. Historic districts carry no prohibition against bottle digging or any other such artifact exploration. State or federally owned properties are different, but privately owned properties are absolutely controlled by the owners, who have the final decision on the use of their property.

 

[paddy.mick]

This is a shipwreck forum, and if you have been following discussion, you will find that one of the problems treasure hunters have in Florida is the state intentionally used "preservation" as a way to keep treasure hunters out of areas where there is treasure. Preservation has made some shipwreck sites "off-limits" to salvors, so that is the shipwreck connection.

itmaiden

Ok, there's the word "shipwreck", now it's about shipwrecks I guess. Just trying to keep it real, as the kids say.

 

[billinstuart]

Don't forget, the shipwrecks are on STATE property..THAT'S the problem.

 

[EDDE]

The coast guard is being cut also...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021104796.html

 

[itmaiden]

That seems counterproductive to the war on terrorism. Oh what a tangled web of deceit in Washington D.C. So maybe the coast guard can sell of some of those old ships to TH's.

itmaiden

The coast guard is being cut also...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021104796.html

 

[itmaiden]

I Love Sebastian, however, maybe you haven't noticed all the condos and residential development all along the dunes (that we cannot hunt) on the beach ?

itmaiden

Yep, and the many places we enjoy here in Florida would have been condos without historic preservation: Sebastian, St. Augustine, Hobe Sound, and many other beautiful State and Fed parks. I'd rather land be set aside for preservation than let some out of state or foreign company come plunder it and leave us a stripmine, bankrupt housing project, or dumping ground.
And, isn't this a Shipwreck forum? Perhaps the Rants section is better suited for a lot of this?

 

[billinstuart]

RE: The dunes. Ironic, isn't it? "Don't walk in the dunes, but you may bulldoze them away". There's actually a "coastal setback" distance for this construction, which SHOULD leave a narrow line of dunes along the edge of the beach.

As for the Coast Guard, I also agree. That move will our coastal protection up to Homeland Security, who can't find their butt with both hands.

 

[itmaiden]

Speaking of Homeland Security, did you see the latest ?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/18/government.guns/index.html?hpt=T2

Yea, one has to wonder how the protection of the dunes is so vital that it is okay to sell them off to private entities for condo development etc. Yet if a TH digs a little hole and fills it back in, it is a major threat. One is only going to dig where there is a signal.

itmaiden

RE: The dunes. Ironic, isn't it? "Don't walk in the dunes, but you may bulldoze them away". There's actually a "coastal setback" distance for this construction, which SHOULD leave a narrow line of dunes along the edge of the beach.

As for the Coast Guard, I also agree. That move will our coastal protection up to Homeland Security, who can't find their butt with both hands.

 

[wwwtimmcp]

I am for historic preservation funding, alot of the by laws governing the preservation of old historic places calls for period type work to be done and that is expensive. I stayed at the galisteo inn in new mexico. built in the 1700's like a small adobe fort, it was a blast to see what people lived in back then.

the construction was massive to repel indian attacks and the roof was built to collect rain water for those trapped inside. I stayed a week there in 1993 and enjoyed every minute of it. without funding it would not have been around .

I would love to be able to metal detect around that place the finds would be extraordinary indeed.

 

[itmaiden]

I enjoy historic places as long as they contribute to a new understanding and education of things. I have a friend whose husband worked on a gov't contract this last year on a historic project in New Mexico. He is in construction by trade. However, when they got to the project, the gov't had them using this temporary type of material for the walls that costs plenty, and at the same time, will not last and will have to be replaced quite often. Is that good spending ?

itmaiden

I am for historic preservation funding, alot of the by laws governing the preservation of old historic places calls for period type work to be done and that is expensive. I stayed at the galisteo inn in new mexico. built in the 1700's like a small adobe fort, it was a blast to see what people lived in back then.

the construction was massive to repel indian attacks and the roof was built to collect rain water for those trapped inside. I stayed a week there in 1993 and enjoyed every minute of it. without funding it would not have been around .

I would love to be able to metal detect around that place the finds would be extraordinary indeed.

 

[wwwtimmcp]

well first of all I am for doing things right the first time, why do it twice ? it may have been a case of having to do it temporarily to save what is there until enough funds are available to do it right or they needed the building now and it was quicker to do temporarily. I don't see cutting all funding due to one questionable case in any event.

 

[itmaiden]

My real main area of concern is when "Historic Preservation" is used as a way to "confiscate" potential treasure sites. The same with so called "archaeological" sites. The state will claim it is archaeological to keep TH's off a site, but then comes a "developer" with bribes, and "walla" !, the site is no longer important as an archaeological site. The state then claims they acquired all the information they can from the site, so there is no longer a need to "preserve it", while at the same time they have kept TH's off the site long after the "archaeological information" was already acquired.

Now I do think having one or two interesting shipwreck sites for tourist diving is okay. Preserving a couple of forts, an old Plantation, a civil war battlefield here or there...all that is okay, as long as the gov't or their pseudo non-profits don't claim ownership over ALL of them.

Sheila

well first of all I am for doing things right the first time, why do it twice ? it may have been a case of having to do it temporarily to save what is there until enough funds are available to do it right or they needed the building now and it was quicker to do temporarily. I don't see cutting all funding due to one questionable case in any event.

 

[itmaiden]

What is your honest opinion about the archaeological and historical preservation of "hot dogs" ?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/02/25/reid.old.hotdog.news12?hpt=C2

itmaiden

well first of all I am for doing things right the first time, why do it twice ? it may have been a case of having to do it temporarily to save what is there until enough funds are available to do it right or they needed the building now and it was quicker to do temporarily. I don't see cutting all funding due to one questionable case in any event.